If it really is a play issue, it's more likely that American parents don't allow their children more freedom on the playground, instead helicoptering around (I'm guilty) and not allowing them to just handle things themselves.
If it really is a play issue, it's more likely that American parents don't allow their children more freedom on the playground, instead helicoptering around (I'm guilty) and not allowing them to just handle things themselves.
The interaction in France reminded me much more of my parents and I than the modern parents of North America.
It's hard to put a finger on exactly what it was but there was a lot more letting the kids climb on stuff, do "dangerous" things, work out their own problems, fight their own battles and basically run around having fun.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/may/21/children-weak...
http://www.bustle.com/articles/41370-11-stupidly-dangerous-t... --- I remember some of these toys and they were great fun.
There were eleven trampoline deaths in the US between 1990 and 1995.
http://www.avon.nhs.uk/phnet/Avonsafe/Trampolines/Trampoline...
There were about 100,000 ER presentations in the US in 2007. These are all preventable accidents. And these accidents happened after considerable work had gone into making trampolines safer.
Safety nets help (many injuries happen when people fall off), but here's a passage describing another method of injury:
> 3.5 If a trampolinist lands on the mat when out of phase with the other participants, the mat may be rising to meet them and the effect is of meeting a hard surface. All the potential and kinetic energy in the system is transferred to the person, who may be unprepared. Depending on the child’s mass, the energy transfer may be equivalent to falling from 2.2m or 3.4 m equivalent to a fall from a first floor window7. This fact may provide a useful tool to communicate the effect of trampolining to parents and supervisors.
None of this means that trampolines should be banned. A manufacturing standard is probably needed for domestic equipment. And people should be encouraged to have adult spotters and safety nets.
Looks like an incredibly safe activity.
How many deaths were there for people simply falling while they walk?
"According to the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), 246,875 medically treated trampoline injuries occur annually in the U.S."
If kids want to jump, get them a safe inflatable castle and let them jump inside. Those don't suffer from the trampoline problem you delineated, and frankly are more fun.
The real problem is finding alternatives for things like stairs and bathtubs.
And you know what, that is okay. Because it's one of the less dangerous things children can do that improve their physical understanding and ability. Certainly beats them trying to get on the roof of the playground.
But I agree that safety nets, or trampolines dug into the ground is a very good idea. Actually, both would be the best.
My kid is 2 and we let him go down water slides and climb up those "safe", modern jungle gym thingies.
It is kind of disturbing though that I don't see kids running around exploring the woods and creeks and stuff like we did in the 70s and early 80s.
I'm with you. The overly structured method of childhood now is disturbing. Whereas we used to play sandlot baseball, kids are on competitive traveling teams. Where we used to 'explore' the woods and camp on our own, kids are in scouts and have structured hikes every weekend with overnight camps in cabins. etc. etc
Maybe it's just rose colored glasses, but I do genuinely believe that the unstructured play of my youth seemed a hell of a lot more fun than what my nieces and nephews are going through with schedules and practices and structure.
Our kids will be running around feral, trashing the place and getting disapproving looks from the other parents, who seem to be spending the whole of their effort suppressing their kids natural desire to play.
Granted, they're well behaved by the time they get to school. But thus far we haven't been inspired to emulate that treatment.
You take a safe floor surface. Yu scatter a bunch of differnet really world objects. The aim is to have sensory stuff there so you use hair brushes, different fabrics, baskets with differnet weaves, pine cones, safe mirrors, bells, washed chip (uk crisp) packets (that crinkle and are shiny) etc etc.
You then place your crawling infant on the floor and then only monitor for safety.
So, there's some helicoptering (you want to make sure the child doesn't choke or poke their eye out) but apart from that it's not directive.
Crawling infants have a pattern of crawling where they explore their area in geadually increasing loops. They move away from the parent, explore a bit, and return, then move away and explore a bit more, then return. There's an old (1980s / 1990s) british tv show that had a timelapse of this.
Tiny kids are fascinating.
http://www.walltowall.co.uk/program/baby-its-you-a-babys-wor...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Baby-Its-You-Leanne-Klein/dp/B000A7I...
There are absolutely parents that stay within a couple of feet of their 2-3 year old children. I had one comment to me a couple of weeks ago how confident with climbing, running, etc. my two year old was - it took a lot of restraint to not say "He climbs well because I let him climb."
My first child who was (and is) a natural-born monkey whose idea of a good time at 18 months was leaping off a high platform to shimmy down a fireman's pole. Then we had our second child, who if anything had more freedom, more exposure to age-inappropriate toys/environments, and less supervision than our first (can't watch two kids as closely as one!)... and he'll fall off anything he tries to climb. And no, it's not a medical issue or anything, they're just not wired the same way.
I have an academic background/career, my wife is a teacher. We live in a very rural area. They live in a very, very, urban area. He is a professional maitre d' in a fancy restaurant, and she is, as of recent, a CPA (was previously a chef of some kind).
The children in question are slightly over 2.
Their child is super confident around people. He is very outgoing, he is super friendly and doesn't hesitate to go to you to be picked up if he needs something. He is great on stairs, and is incredibly confident in his jumping off of things. He doesn't really talk. He is incredibly scared of bugs, birds, and any animal larger than a Labrador retriever.
My kid is shy around people. He will go to you, only if we say it's alright first. He sucks out loud on stairs, and jumps off of low objects. He talks in complete sentences and uses new words constantly. He loves picking up bugs and spiders, and is fascinated by all animals.
Neither one is better than the other, more advanced than the other, or really any better off in the long run, I'm convinced. They're just different. You can definitely tell what their parents do for entertainment. My cousin and his wife spend their time in the city, with people, doing things that require movement around the city. My wife and I spend our time either messing around in the woods, or sitting on the back porch listening to NPR or talking with friends. In rural areas, story telling is key to entertainment, so that's what we do.
And the imprint these two different lives are having on children who are relatively similar in genetics, socioeconomic status and amount of care in the home is simply fascinating.
I see 2 year old kids who can climb and navigate almost any playground, because their parents let them try, and let them fall, when reasonable. I have seen 5 years old who cannot do the same because the parents never let them take risks.
It is OK for kids to fall and get hurt sometimes. One of the harder parts of being a parent is letting that happen, and making judgments between when it is safe to let them fail vs. when it would truly injure them.